you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 year ago* (2 children)

Nope, nope, nope. It is not a show of force, it's making the society ungovernable, like not paying taxes, growing/making/selling anything to anyone etc. There was no implication of anything more violent. It is not appealing to the morality of the oppressor.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    If that was true, the British would have had their puppets shoot and starve them until they were governable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    And they tried. Look at the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, the salt raids, the mass imprisonments. But the point wasn’t to wait for mercy, it was to make the cost of control so high, through sheer non-cooperation, that ruling became practically impossible. The system depends on participation. Remove that, and power collapses under its own weight. It’s not about violence, nor about moral appeals. It’s about leverage. When millions stop obeying, even bullets can’t fix the math.

  • source
  • parent